Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Constructive Criticism of Tibetan Buddhism
Vincenzi
Veteran
since the thread was closed, I propose starting a similar one but without the tendency for false speach that Cloud mentioned.
0
Comments
I'll simply mention two things. First, why isn't TB held accountable by some governmental agency (which is not uncommon in Asia)? And/or, there are at least three international Buddhist organizations that ought to be a little braver and take a position on practices in any branch of Buddhism. At least here in the west, we certainly have been critical of Muslims who do not speak out against abuses of that religion, it seems as if the international Buddhist organizations would see a benefit to improving the perception of Buddhism through setting some standards that ought to be recognized by legit Buddhist divisions.
(I thought the "Venting" thread got pretty humorous, with the comments on the horns and throat-singing. ^_^)
The second thing they can do is admit they need to change some of their practices and focus on the elimination of suffering, not magical beliefs such as their tulku "living Buddha" habit of taking children to be raised as special monks and claiming that's their dead previous Lama reincarnated. It's simply wrong to do that to children. "The search for a reincarnation is a mystical process involving clues left by the deceased and visions among leading monks on where to look." That should not be what Buddhism is about, magic and secret teachings and power tightly controlled by a chosen few.
But I'm not sure how much of this is possible.
I don't know which is more unrealistic: to think they'll give up the tulku tradition, or the abuse "traditions". *sigh* I think a lot of this is a matter of a medieval culture catching up to the 21st century.
*not sure if they are
Some say the choices are made for political reasons, often tulkuships are kept in an extended family.
at the very least, tulkus should be allowed to resign as monks.
tulku just means "you were a really nice person in your prior life"... but that doesn't means that such person's only choice is to become a monk.
@Vincenzi Tulkus aren't required to become monks, there are many who aren't. And they can resign as monks too, many have done that as well.
then I see no problem with the tulku tradition.
it will be up to each tulku to actually lead a life according to the expectations.
The reason the orgs I listed don't do anything is because they haven't got the guts and/or they're part of the coverup.
Don't forget, that child raised by the monks isn't just presented to the people as a spiritual advisor when he grows up (and the reincarnated high Lama will be a man, of course. No women allowed in the club.) The Lama was also placed on a throne and given secular authority of life and death over the Tibetan people. I think the Dalai Lama's decision to begin separating his office from the rulership is the first real progress they've made.
After a series of powerful Emperors ruled, the Mongolian Kublai Kahn invaded Tibet during what we would call their "dark ages", when the ruling family had fractured and there was no central ruling authority. There was literally nobody in charge and about the only institution managing to keep society working at all was the Buddhist temples. So the Kahn ordered the most senior monks rounded up and ordered the head monk to surrender Tibet to him, whether he had the power to do it or not. In return, this monk was given the authority by the conquerors to rule in the Kahn's name.
And thus began a long line of what we would call "Priest Kings" who combined secular and religious authority. It was not unheard of. The King of England is also the head of the Church of England, for instance. But various factions of the Buddhist temples would actually go to war against each other. I would say at this point, the Sangha in Tibet was Buddhist in name only. Again, this isn't unique. Various Popes went to war against other claimants to the Papal throne.
But the power politics of the Tibet Buddhist temples have nothing to do with the Dharma. Anyone who thinks this power has not and will not currupt the Buddha's Sangha has never studied people, politics, or history.
The Dalai Lama says his reincarnation might be found in the West, and might be a girl? Fat chance. Once he's gone, the monks will reassert their power. That's human nature.
no more king dalai lama?
hehe, that's true
If there is a sovereign territory in India I think they should have free elections. Let the people decide what they want.
Now granted those bulletin boards maybe get 10 posts a week (not threads). Most people don't want to make someone else uncomfortable and it is a big risk to seem like a 'basher' or whatever.
It is much like suppose I am a vegetarian and I believe the cause of animal rights is very dear. It should be. Factory farming probably creates much more suffering than has gone on in guru worship etc.
But people don't bring it up socially I mean its kind of an uncomfortable topic. I think I might initiate a discussion in my sangha, but I just have to assimilate this into a greater understanding. A logical as opposed to emotional presentation.
I don't have a problem with casual relations. The problem is that as a fact such attracts abuse. Not only that, but with the authority-expectations that is magnified.
I think if the guru had to get married to have relations it would be much better.
Then the whole notion of sex in religion I have no problem whatsoever with that. If there were no such thing as abuse I don't see it as a problem. Aside from the problem of expectations that is. I don't find casual religous sexual encounters a problem.
So what do I want to preserve? The most important thing (for me) to preserve is the teachings I have received. I find the buddha nature teachings are fundamental to understanding the three marks. Spaciousness is a good way to explain non-self. From an experiential perspective. All of the teachings I have received come from scriptures and a oral tradition.
I think we get side tracked, derailed, and waste our time making this about xenophobic: why can't everyone be theravadan immature behaviour. It totally takes all the air out of the arguments against abuse. Because I am not going to support a theravadan who is attacking the core dharma I believe in and join forces with them.
I don't peronaly identify with sex as a practice. Its not really a ritual rather it is a practice. If you call it a ritual then meditation is also a ritual. Anyhow I don't identify with that sex in religion. But lets just entertain that we are trying to keep that second piece on the table. Suppose it is making all sorts of buddhas for all beings? Who knows?
Otherwise we could just stop tantric sex and a large part of the abuse problem would be devested. Obviously there would still be abuse because tons of gurus are corrupt in the first place but it would be a great step.
So what can we do if we keep tantric sex? If the gurus remain celibate they cannot teach regarding what they do not experience. So as I see it the only solutions are to either stop tantric sexual practice or else to require that the gurus are married.
Make gurus/organizations responsible in civil court to lawsuits. Like corporations the religious environment should require a sexual harassment free.
So then the individuals could sue the gurus/organizations. Money talks.
I have this
Most people only focus on the laudable step of self-governing, without stopping to realize what a mess this self-government was and what that means.
The entire reincarnation thing seems to be just an answer to the quandry, that if a celebate monk is going to rule, then unlike other Kings, how do we keep control of who sits on the throne without a Prince of royal blood line waiting around? So this keeps the temples from launching into wars each time a new Dalai needs to be put on the throne, each having their own head monks to jocky for position. It's actually a remarkably clever way of keeping chaos to a minimum.
It's really a fascinating twist on an ancient system of dynastic royal governing.
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm
the pope is the president of the Vatican, which is a country.
why not educate all monks as tulkus?
every willing person should be allowed to study as much as he/she pleases!
...at least with the Net, most sutras are accesible.
this is the constructive criticism; making tulku's education more freely available is an improvement.
In Italy, you know, not everyone gets to finish highschool and go to university. Those who don't do well in school are shunted off to vocational training programs. There's some talk of instituting a system like that here in the US. Sometimes the people who are slated to go to vocational training aren't happy about it.
There are some monks, 10% or so I think is the rough estimate, who show an aptitude and interest in pursuing more rigorous study. They get a very good education in the Dharma and some go on to take the geshe exam, which is like a doctorate degree, others pursue the arts and ritual aspects more. Also, theres no limit put on young monks as to how much they're able to study. Internet access for all monks, great idea, lets get right on that. :skeptic: